In addition to that, language is not a fixed paradigm, it is defined by people using it, not the other way around. When enough people use a word in the "wrong" way, it becomes the correct and normal way to use it.

Paradigm means: pattern, system or model. You could say that worldviews are a type of paradigm, when that worldview is a shared belief system, a pattern or model shared by many. However, it is also possible to have a worldview that is not a paradigm at all (if it is unique, original and not well defined) So yes, I think you are misusing the word.

This article is very ironic btw, the idea that Thomas Kuhn invented this word is hilarious. He is just another guy hijacking the word for his own purposes. This word was used for centuries before Kuhn came around.

I am beginning to think that philosophers are unaware and unable to read non-philosophy books, it's brutal how narrow-minded these essays constantly are. Talk about cloistered scholars.

I completely disagree with this approach and that’s okay.

I'm not a heavily invested scholar but my understanding of Dao and Wu Wei is that it does strive for perfection, it's just that perfection is harmony with nature and divine providence.

The descriptions of the ultimate government using Wu Wei is that the ruler at the very top should do nothing at all because nothing needs to be done - in the ideal government, the ministers diligently carry out duties, and their subordinates do the same, and the country prospers without need for a directive from the ruler.

"Effortless action" here doesn't mean doing nothing, it means that no additional effort need be expended because acting in harmony with the world and the Dao creates a divine experience (not even necessarily positive - there's a measure of Stoic-like acceptance of harm as also being part of what nature is).

I think (not 100% sure) there is a "perfect" world under the Dao, but it's one that's effectively without thought - all persons just, by their nature, act in accordance with the Dao and what will be will be.

The only time I've heard the word "paradigm" used repeatedly, consistently, and appropriately was when studying Latin. Also, fuck studying Latin.

I thought I was gonna be the only in here expressing my love of Kuhn. Best class in my undergrad degree was Philosophy of the History of Science and as you expect he was the core of the curriculum. Growing up in a family of engineers, I really solidified my love of philosophy during that seminar

Fry vats. Stupid autocorrect

[deleted]

When I first learned this world, I took it to mean "worldview". Is that the usage that is bemoaned as a misuse?

Great read! Thanks for sharing!

Great read! Thanks for sharing!

[deleted]

Nice try Hedonists /s

I love Kuhn, but he is not the originator of the word "paradigm". He certainly gave it a specific meaning in terms of the history and philosophy of science, but it's a pretty old word. The people using it as a buzz word are probably not using it in the Kuhnian sense.

I first learned that term from Kuhn's book, which I found very important at the time. It was later that the term "paradigm" became popularized into general culture by Joel Barker.

I met Barker and attended a few of his early lectures. Insightful person. He did not misuse the term in my opinion.

It's a shame that the word has been maligned. It's a useful term for which there isn't a very good synonym, making it difficult to actually discuss paradigmatic issues. People groan and roll their eyes if they hear this term used these days.

You're welcome, enjoy! Hope it's helpful

Exactly my problem with the first part of the article. I mean he even ends that section saying that Nietzsche agrees: "Even if you’re (almost) guaranteed to fail, there is merit in extending yourself and expressing yourself into (or even against) the world.

Sure, you can’t control the outcome."

A stoic would say basically the same thing. I really can't believe the author didn't see this right in front of them.

But the equanimity part is something I struggle with myself when it comes to stoicism. I've recently started therapy and one of the biggest revelations is that I have (sub or not)consciously suppressed many, nearly all, of my emotional reactions in the interest of "mind over matter" and an Aristotilean concept of base emotions vs. a developed intellect that is "in control." To subscribe to this mindset blindly is to ignore nearly ALL the progress made in behavioral science and the associated philosophy. I haven't swung all the way to the other side, I'm extremely wary of all the "dopamine hit" psuedo-science out there. But at least in my personal experience, "allowing myself the permission to feel the emotions" (in the words of my therapist) before trying to wrangle them and force them into a constructive form has been very beneficial for my self-esteem and ability to think about myself and self-improvement.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

At least I've been introduced to Brigid Delaney, a writer I don't know. I'll have to hunt down her book. Has anyone read it?

[deleted]

"So he's proactive, huh?" "Oh god yes! We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm!"

Well yea, when you read Epictetus he makes it very clear that he believes in divine providence. That the world is right how it is, and you just do your part… so you might as well be happy about it.

Some of the textual analysis was reasonable, (and definitely more a fan of Nietzsche than Aurelius), but it's arguable the author is over-emphasising the degree of passivity inherent to Stoic philosophy and drawing it to an unreasonable reductio ad absurdum that is closer to Zen Buddhism.

OK, so what was "fry cats" supposed to be?

That's literally not what Stoicism is though.